G'day Lindsay and the Group
At 01:38 PM 23/01/04 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote:
This bounced when I sent it this morning, so I'll try again - apologies if anyone gets it twice. LB.
G'day All,
Andrew, I'll only respond to a few points as time is limited.
At 06:00 AM 23/01/04 +1100, Andrew wrote:At 07:15 PM 19/01/04 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote:It also seems to me that stories are told and passed on for a purpose. One purpose is preservation of the traditions themselves, but there are lots of other moral and educational purposes for telling stories to the youngsters. So stories become shaped to different purposes, which are not constant over time.
This is more speculation, and it still seems to ignore the possibility that the custodians believe that the stories are true, and that preserving their accuracy is extremely important. And, I would suggest that these were exactly the conditions we find in at least some periods of Biblical transmission, and do today for that matter.
I agree that the custodians believe the stories are true, but they might still be told at a given time for a specific educational/moral purpose, that is not always the same. So the creation story might be told to reveal the wonders of God. Or it might be told to instruct on the sabbath rest. Or it might be about original sin. In some cases, a variant "telling" might actually become a new story that is preserved separately from its parent.
I was trying to say that I accept that the transmission of oral history is orders of magnitude more reliable than chinese whispers. But I would also say that for me, to believe that entire books of the old testament were transmitted orally without a single error of any kind - that belief could only rely upon supernatural intervention.
Yes. And while this would be possible IMO, the evidence is that it's not what happened. There are many instances where we have good evidence that the original documents have changed.
For example, another of my "discoveries" when I started to read the Bible for myself was the wholesale duplication between parts of Kings and Chronicles. I was pretty naive I guess, but I'd been regular at church since before I was out of nappies, church school and all, and I was shocked at just how little I'd learned in that time, and how little others seemed to know. And by then I'd also met some fundamentalists. How could they possibly hold to their view that none of it had ever been altered, I wondered? Did they actually read the Bible, or just carry it around? The answer, I decided, was that they did read it, but only selected passages, under the careful guidance of their mentors.
This may explain my distaste for reading guides and lectionaries. I must have attended twenty-odd Pentecost services without ever learning that Acts 2 existed, and I think that one reason for this was simply that my parish minister of the time didn't like what it says.
Spong sets out the editing and revisions that occurred after the first books were written down. I find his account plausible. How about you? It seems to me that if there is a fraction of truth in what Spong says, then any oral inaccuracies become trivial by comparison.
I'm not familiar with Spong's list, but I've found his stuff well-researched in general, so if I had any arguments with it I'd be likely to assume in the first instance that he was right.
I certainly don't think there's anything in the Bible that I can identify as science, which is a bit bizarre when I reflect that many of those who built the modern scientific method were committed to the idea that the Bible was unique and true. Another big topic.
I disagree with what I think you are trying to say here. The modern scientific method was being established from roughly 1750 onwards, I think, and was quite well defined by Darwin's day.
Hmmm. See below on what I was "trying" to say.
Just BTW, "Origin of Species" is one of the most brilliant books I've ever read. It's still held by some to be the best scientific treatise yet written in the English language. It's a bit dry and very detailed but still an awesomely good read.
My observation is that nearly everyone who comments on the supposed conflict between it and the Bible has only read one of the two! Someone told me a once that the problem with Darwin was that his conclusions were based on "so little evidence". If he'd read even a few chapter summaries he'd have known just how ridiculous that particular rumour is! (And I've heard similar remarks about Kinsey, same problem.) But nor does the other side seem to have read the Bible.
As my "creation science" web page says, it's hard to see how either side expects to be taken seriously. If you wish to compare two books, surely you need to first read them?
Modern biblical literalism, on the other hand, developed gradually as the bible became available for private individuals outside of the universities, maybe 1800-1850. Then it really kicked off in response to Darwin and other naturalists of the last decades of the 19th century.
Agreed.
So yes, the founders of the scientific method believed that the Bible was unique and true, but their belief could not be equated with literal beliefs of today.
Agreed. I'm sorry you interpreted my remarks to mean that. I don't really see how you could, but obviously you did, and it takes two to communicate, so I'm at least partly at fault.
This seems to be a common error - a view of history wherein a literal bible view has dominated the christian era, and other views have not been seriously entertained until the last 120 years.
Hmmmm. Yes. Agreed. I needed to read that twice!
Let's move on. You don't seem to have any argument with what I *meant* to say.
I think there's a perception among the hard right of biblical scholars, the creation scientists and such, that after the schism they see between science and the Bible nothing could possibly get worse or more challenging. And I think they are dead wrong here. You ain't seen nothin' yet. How will they cope? Not very elegantly I suspect.
They will respond by digging their trenches even deeper.
Probably.
In that environment, could we still believe that God would ask such a thing? Not me. And if I can't believe it today, I can't see a good reason to believe that God asked it of Abraham. And in that case, I could not use the passage to teach others about faithfulness. If you are saying that maybe Abraham was mistaken, that puts quite a different spin on the whole story.
This is a rather fine distinction but I think it's important.
I think Abraham understood perfectly well what God was asking. I think God asked this because of Abraham's primitive, barbaric if you like, understanding of what God is like. I don't see how you can read the story and conclude that God didn't really ask for the sacrifice.
Can you?
To be honest, yes. Perhaps God asked Abraham if he was willing to give up anything if God required it. And Abraham interpreted that either as a direct instruction to sacrifice Isaac, or as a general demand to demonstrate that willingness so he chooses his most precious possession. And God allows it to proceed but intervenes at the last minute.
Hmmm. I think that's an unlikely reading. Why wouldn't Genesis say that, if that was what happened?
I can see no reason to speculate like this. It violates Occam's (or Ockam or Ockham if you like) Razor.
But if it comes to that, I find sacrifices of bulls, lambs and even birds rather revolting too.
Then thankfully we are let off the hook in Micah (?) where we discover that suddenly God doesn't want sacrifices any more but is interested in our ethics and relationships. Did God change? I doubt it. I find it easier to understand the bulk of the sacrificial tradition as having been picked up by the Hebrews because that was what their neighbours did in worship.
I agree. (!) But with one little qualification, which doesn't contradict the letter of what you say here but may clash with your intention. I think that God *did* ask for sacrifices, notably in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
This is God meeting the Isrealites where they are at. And compared say to the infant sacrifices known in the region at the time, he was asking them to be quite civilised!
I agree that the story of Abraham and Isaac shows a very limited understanding of God. Is that the point you wish to make?
I guess that is part of it. And if our understanding of God has out-grown this story (in some respects) then we should allow ourselves to move on, and not feel that we have to drag it all with us into the 21st century when it doesn't want to go. I think I'm in common with Allan on that.
Hmmm. So, how will you draw the line as to what goes and what stays? I guess the story of Dinah will also go (a pity, the bikers love it - "hey, those brothers of hers were all right"). Joseph might stay, but we'll censor the details of just why he was in prison. Surely God wouldn't put a man in such an unfair position? (;->
And before we know it, we'll have cut out the atonement as well. Which if course is exactly what Allan has done. But that then leaves a big hole in our theology, to the point that most of the theologians of history, going right back to St Paul I think, wouldn't even recognise it as Christianity. This is not something to be done at all lightly, as I'm sure Allan realises.
I'm not sure how to respond to this because I don't want to offend you. The argument you have just used is commonly used by some very insecure literalists. That if we drop so much as a word from the Bible, we'll pretty soon find the whole thing turning to dust and slipping through our fingers.
No offence taken. If you want this clarified, I'm glad for you to raise it.
I'm not talking about just a few words changed.
And even if this were my argument, I wouldn't be too worried about these "insecure literalists" using an argument that I used too. Just because *some* of the arguments these people use are invalid, that doesn't mean that *every* argument they use is invalid. Not *everything* they say is wrong. So I'm not too worried by the prospect of guilt by association.
But all I was asking is, where do you draw the line? And I think that's a fair and important question, especially when you seem to have already rejected what St Paul would have regarded, IMO, as *most* of the Gospel. At the very least a major and non-negotiable part of it.
Spong refutes that view very strongly and I won't repeat it here. But Spong states that he does what he does *because* he loves the Bible and wants to live by its teaching, not because he wants to undermine it or destroy it.
I do have some arguments with Spong, and can't go into details because I don't have any of his books readily to hand. I don't find them all that helpful, I've read them in the past mainly to have answers for friends who wanted to know what I thought of him.
In some parts he's a breath of fresh air. He's very articulate and well researched. So I'm sure his refutation of the view of these "insecure literalists" is impressive.
I don't think you have answered the question, and I fear it may be I who have offended you in asking it.
Or at another level, people say that liberal theology is all fine and well in the theological colleges, but it is too hot, too dangerous to put in the minds of common folk because they will become confused and lose their faith.
They may. But I don't, and I gather you don't either. Rather, I think we both want the best scholarship to be available both in college and from the local pulpit.
And I think you grossly misrepresent Allan.
I certainly didn't mean to. I would never have brought his name up if I'd thought it would be controversial like that. Our conversation ended on a very positive note I thought. I thought this would be helpful. I have blundered.
But I'm now struggling to see how I have misrepresented him, even slightly. All I said was that he'd rejected the doctrine of the Atonement. And he did say that, didn't he?
Ok, well maybe I wrote off the consequences of unbelief a little lightly. But Paul (I think) wrote that if Christ did not rise (I substitute for example, 'if God is not love') then we are the most pitiful people.
I also think Paul wrote this. Allan and I had an interesting discussion on exactly what Paul might have meant. It turns out that he doesn't find the issue Paul is addressing here nearly as simple as I had always thought it was.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the substitution.
I'm saying that my beliefs about the resurrection - whether it actually happened and what its nature might have been - are uncertain, and it is not the foundation of my faith that it was for Paul. So I substitute something else that *is* a foundation of my faith.
OK. Understood.
To me, this has serious dangers, as well as the huge difficulty in transplanting the story to Australia 2004.
I'm skeptical as to the dangers. Anybody in our society who is going to sacrifice their son has problems that go way beyond a poor interpretation of this passage.
If one person in the world is at danger of following the example of Abraham in a literal sense, then I would hope that everyone who teaches this would take care to very clear about what they mean and what they don't mean.
I'd guess that if anyone is in this danger, it's likely to be in the backwoods of "folk Islam", not in Australia. So if that is really your concern, then perhaps you should join one of the many mission organisations with a burden for evangelising these areas. The problem here may be that I think you'll find them all unpalatably orthodox in their theology.
I still find it hard to take this particular worry seriously. That's in Australia, anyway.
As for "transplanting" the story to Australia 2004, that's exactly what I'm *not* suggesting. Rather we need to locate it firmly in its historical setting.
I'm not sure that I can sufficiently understand Abraham's setting to really understand the story. I am even more doubtful that I could convey an adequate understanding to a congregation. So where do we end up? "The preacher says we should follow Abraham's example, but he doesn't really mean it."
The point is simply that Abraham had faith, and was obedient, and was blessed as a result. I think you're making it needlessly complicated.
I don't think God is barbaric either, so that is why I discount the authority of the barbaric bits attributed to God, like slaughtering the Caananites.
Another big subject. I've found all the explanations I have seen for *why* God thought this was a good idea quite unconvincing. It is a mystery to me.
But the Bible seems to be clear that God *did* give these instructions to Israel. So, your approach seems to be to say that the Bible is wrong here. Is that a fair statement? That's an honest question. I'd like to explore this.
I'm not sure that the Bible is wrong. But it is also easy enough to understand in human terms, I reckon. Almost everyone who goes to war believes that God is on their side, and that can be used to justify many atrocities. And the victorious side can write into their history that God was indeed on their side.
The whole concept of war crimes worries me. It's not that I have any doubt of the guilt of many of those accused. But it strains credulity for it always to be the losers who are guilty, and never the winners.
No easy answers.
OK, so that just adds another layer - instead of consensus in each group, the conclusion represents the wishes of the strong debaters, with a few concessions for the others. That could also have been a dynamic in authorship of the bible.
Hmmm? I rather think the whole scenario collapses. It sounded so convincing, but you've now abandoned one of its key assumptions.
Not at all. We could replace the groups by individuals - I certainly know people who would represent the different midsets. I think you are missing the whole point, which was that we could obtain two documents which purport to be a revelation of God's will, but which are mutually incompatible.
I agree that we could easily obtain such. I think that's harmless.
I believe that the Bible includes examples of this.
Can you give me an example?
In response we could tie ourselves in knots trying to prove that they can both be true, as literalists tend to do. What I think you do is to maintain that the authority of the Bible is in the whole, and if a particular point is unclear then we should focus on obeying the clear bits.
That's a fair statement. I'd just want to add that it's extremely important to be honest with ourselves as to whether or not we really are clear on what something means. This is often a struggle. Before I gave an example from my life, where the Bible seemed to disqualify my female friend from the eldership and I nominated her anyway.
What I am saying is that I can be frank about the mutually incompatible bits, and then distill from the whole a coherent revelation of God (but realising that I may make mistakes or obtain a different understanding from others on some points).
That sounds pretty good to me. Hang in there.
Yours in Christ andrew a
**** email: andrewa @ alder . ws http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa Phone 9441 4476 Mobile 04 2525 4476 ****
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/04
